Monday, 6 April 2020

Joshua Wong: After Winning Majority in LegCo: Beijing's Crackdown May Trigger International Intervention

After Winning Majority in LegCo: Beijing's Crackdown May Trigger International Intervention
Co-translated by Joy Zhu and Karen Leung, edited by Chen-t'ang and Wentao Zhai, written by Joshua Wong [originally on 29 Mar 2020, Ming Pao]

Hongkongers have experienced our revolution for over half a year. They no longer take a consequentialist view to the effectiveness of their movement as they did years ago, or waste time second-guessing the intentions and background of fellow activists. Following the defensive battles at CUHK and PolyU, November’s District Council election saw a great victory of unity. More marvellous is the union between peaceful and “valiant” protesters. In the process of resisting tyranny, the people have realised that one cannot prioritize one strategy over another. This is also how the common goal of “35+” came into being—the hope that we will win over half of the seats in the Legislative Council (LegCo) this September, such that the political spectrum that represents the majority of Hongkongers is able to gain control of legislative decisions. The political clout of Hongkongers will increase if 35 or more seats are successfully secured on our side. It is certainly one vital step to achieve the five demands within the system.

The possibility of realizing legislative majority

Technically it is not unrealistic to win a majority even under the current undemocratic system. Back in the 2016 LegCo election, we already won 30 seats. In addition to the District Council (First) functional constituency seat that is already in the pocket of the pan-democrats, as long as the candidates in Kowloon East and New Territories West do not start infighting again, we could safely secure 33 seats based on the number of pan-dem votes in 2016.

The other 3 seats required to achieve a majority depend on democrats’ breakthrough among the functional constituencies by dispersing the resources of the Liaison Office. They also count on whether the turnout this September could exceed 71.2%—that of last year’s District Council elections. Some of the factors that could affect the turnout include: will the epidemic persist into the summer? Will there be potential violent repression of protests in the 2 weeks preceding the election? Will Hong Kong-US relations be affected by the downturn of the global economy?

Therefore, the ambition of “35+” is to be prioritised by the resistance as both a means and an end. I have already expressed my support for an intra-party primary at the coordination meeting. In the meantime, it is pleasing to see the ongoing debates reaching a consensus of maximising the seats among geographical constituencies in the upcoming election.

Whilst enthusiastic coordination, we should also assess the post-election landscape and gauge Beijing’s reactions: if we do not reach 35 seats, Hong Kong will be subject to tighter control and more severe repression by China; but if the democratic parties successfully form a majority in LegCo, CCP’s fears of a “constitutional crisis” would become imminent. Hence, the key questions are how the Pan-Democrats should deal with the volatile political situation in Hong Kong and how they are going to meet Beijing’s charge head-on.

Watching out for Beijing’s dismissal of LegCo after reaching majority

To take back control of LegCo such that it faithfully reflects the majority’s principles and needs is the definition of a healthy democracy. Recently, however, DAB’s Tam Yiu-chung has warned that the plan of the Pan-Dems to “usurp power” in the LegCo would only lead to Beijing’s forceful disqualification of certain members or the interpretation of the Basic Law. This proves that winning a majority in LegCo is not only a popular conception but also a realistic challenge that would get on the nerves of Beijing. Could Beijing accept a President James To in LegCo? These unknown variables must be addressed upon achieving a majority.

While there is no telltale sign as to Beijing’s exact strategy, we are already familiar with the way CCP manipulated the Basic Law in the past 4 years. Having experienced three waves of disqualifications in LegCo, twice kicked out of LegCo with my team, and thrice locked up in jail, I have no false hopes of an easy compromise from Beijing: they would not let Pan-Dems control LegCo for half a year and wait (as is the proper procedure) until after having negatived the Budget to dissolve the legislature, and thereby giving them an easy victory in the re-elections. The greater the Pan-Dems threaten Beijing’s rule in Hong Kong, the more likely that it will trigger Beijing’s repression. Since the disqualification and arrest of lawmakers have already become “normalised”, one can even imagine the police stepping into the LegCo building to force Pan-Dems into voting. Neither is it beyond our imagination to expect the CCP to kick out all 70 lawmakers in a fit of rage and replace them with a provisional LegCo “2.0” [HKCT note: The first was from 25 Jan 1997 to 30 Jun 1998]. To depend on a majority that could lead to a chapter of a “new testament” for One Country, Two Systems is perhaps what many elites long for, but they are overly optimistic:for a ticket to the promised land will not be available at the Chief Executive election campaign a year and a half later.

Admittedly, the Pan-Dems cannot unilaterally initiate “Laam-chaau” [HKCT note: mostly translated into “scorched-earth” mentality or “mutual destruction”; some even translated into “If I burn, you burn with us”]. The most they can do is to force a standstill of the government, and not for long the LegCo will have been eliminated from the equation to make the wheels turn again. It all leaves the plan of “Negativing the motion → Dissolving LegCo → Re-election after re-election → the stepping down of Carrie Lam” merely as overly positive speculation, probably resulting from their overestimate of CCP's capacity for rational calculation. The Pan-Dems must guard their frontlines and recognise what the biggest threat from Hong Kong to China could be. In this case, should LegCo sessions be disrupted or suspended, the Pan-Dems would have to be well prepared to surmount the expected obstacles and prevent the disqualification crisis 4 years ago—a Catch-22 indeed.

Productive tension from global intervention: Using Laam-chaau against the CCP

What aggravates the CCP the most is the potential threat to Hong Kong’s unique status as the one and only “separate customs territory”. Any miscalculation will compromise its role as the Chinese economy’s “white gloves”. Imagine if CCP were to disqualify all 70 elected lawmakers and convene a meeting north of the Shenzhen River to pass a resolution to Hong Kong’s affairs (much like the Provisional Legislative Council “1.0" in 1997), how great will the shock be in a world with an effective Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act? However hard it is to predict the future one thing is certain: With the US presidential election just around the corner, blows to the separation of powers would not be tolerated, and the West would necessarily effect countermeasures against the Hong Kong government.

Beijing has been relying upon Hong Kong to navigate the international community for decades. While clamping down on the political freedom of the cosmopolitan city, Beijing desires to maintain the financial centre’s economic freedom. Hence, we started lobbying for the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act four years ago, and today we are determined to promote “Laam-chaau” on an international scale.

The will of the voters must be reflected in an election. If a “35+” legislature were to be dismissed and replaced, such flagrant violation of democracy would assuredly cause a greater backlash than the infamous extradition bill. Knowing what the reality ahead of us could be, we have to combine our election and international strategies to oppose the placement of a 35+ LegCo with an “Emergency Legislative Council 2.0”, to advance an international “Laam-chaau” to Hong Kong’s status as “separate customs territory”. Only then will we stand a chance to resist the regime and to realise the five demands.
Adjusting our mindset: Overcoming the “constitutional crisis” to reach a resolution

Upon the realization of the “35+” LegCo, it is expected that the CCP will launch a devastating counterattack. The Pan-Dems should not expect LegCo to run normally; neither can the lawmakers realise their governing blueprints they have for Hong Kong. Rather, candidates will be able to compete against one another with visions of a liberated Hong Kong through popular vote. Bringing this point up has nothing to do with undermining the common goal of reaching a majority in LegCo, but rather channels the battle of LegCo to positive use upon the rule of law’s death and a “constitutional crisis” ahead. Knowing that Hongkongers have nothing to fall back on, all Pan-Dems should not miss the only way to the realization of “35+”. Thus, be they partisans, nonpartisans, incumbent politicians, amateur politicians, or the civil society as a whole – if we stay in the political discourse of 2016 and continue to perpetuate old stereotypes, that is to deal with the divisions on the pan-democratic camp by favouring the most “local” faction; to consider only resource allocation and self-aggrandizement as the purpose of a LegCo campaign; to ignore how potential lawmakers are fitted to what specific roles; to turn a blind eye to the journey of resistance since last summer (extending indefinitely into the future)—They would lead as astray and cost us lose a precious opportunity for change by winning a 35+ majority.

The extent to which the pan-democrats can stay united in light of the political atmosphere since last summer is another problem that our side must to address. Before the watershed moment of 12th June 2019, many democratic delegates were trapped in the mentality of needing to “preserve people’s livelihood”, “be content of what we have accomplished”, and other strategies that favours stability. As the government refuses to heed to the five demands, whether the democrats, especially those in the functional constituencies, have the political will to go all-in is the real difficult question that confronts us in the upcoming LegCo election.

All in all, if “35+” cannot be realised, it is unsurprising to see LegCo being more heavily suppressed in the next 4 years; even if "35+" is achieved, it is questionable whether the pan-democrats are able to weather multiple attacks, verbal or physical, from the regime (judging from its power in the last four years) and utilise the international Laam-chaau strategy against the displacement of LegCo. Adhering to the motto of “we fight on, each in his own way” (Claudia Mo’s translation), I can only hope that Hongkongers in elections, street confrontations and international front can reconcile with each other, so that we may collectively compel the government to yield to our demands in the next six months. It is only by reaching a resolution before a real constitutional crisis that we can combat the institutional violence of the regime and not be devoured by it.

Friday, 20 March 2020

Yuen Kwok-yung, D Lung: Pandemic Originated from Wuhan; Lesson from 17 Years Ago Forsaken

Pandemic Originated from Wuhan; Lesson from 17 Years Ago Forsaken
on 18 Mar 2020 (Ming Pao Daily); translated by JL@HKCT, written by Yuen Kwok-yung, David Christopher Lung
Original: link 

Winter of Jihai (2019), a virus began in Wuhan. Comes spring of Gengzi (2020), an epidemic broke out in Hubei. Within China, there were 80,000 confirmed cases, and 3,000 deaths. People were confined in their homes and the epidemic only began slowing down towards the end of the month, yet the virus had leaked to the world outside before it could be stopped. In March, it was a pandemic, only it was announced too late by the World Health Organization (WHO). Countries lacked measures and reserves, and the pandemic swept across the globe. Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan were spared from the pandemic with continuous sprinkles of overseas imported cases and small groups, but have not yet fallen.

This pandemic came from a virus, shaped like a crown (corōna in Latin), hence named Coronavirus. Since 2015, WHO has avoided using names of people, places, animals, food, culture, occupation, etc., to name illnesses. For this one, the “year” was used for differentiation, COVID-19. In the naming of viruses, International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) analyses only the genome sequencing meticulously and disregards the other aspects. Since the genome sequence of this Coronavirus was “not novel enough”, it belongs in the same sisterhood with the SARS Coronavirus, also known as SARS 2.0 (SARS-CoV-2). Local and international media call it the Wuhan Coronavirus or Wuhan Pneumonia, simple and straight-forward, which is not incorrect.

Much controversy has resulted in society regarding the name of this pandemic. In fact, the illness was named by WHO, while the virus was named by ICTV. Nicknames are conventional, as long as they are clear and understood. In scientific discussions or academic exchanges, COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 must be used. In daily public communications or media wordings, Wuhan Coronavirus or Wuhan Pneumonia are both conventional, easy to understand, and great for communication purposes.

The Pandemic of Gengzi, an Origin in Wuhan

Around 75% of the newly discovered infectious diseases originated from wild animals. Among the few that could infect mammals is the Coronavirus, whose ancestral virus originated from bats or avians. Both have the ability to fly thousands of miles to the place the virus was first discovered, therefore the naming of a virus would also include its place of origin. To investigate the origin of a virus, the correct and objective way is to isolate the virus from the animal host. Unfortunately, since Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market was eradicated early on, the wild animals in the market were already gone by the time researchers had arrived to collect samples. The identities of the natural host and the intermediate host became a mystery. According to the locals, the wild animals sold within the Market came from all over China, Southeast Asia, and Africa (smuggled) to be distributed from there. The ancestral virus of the Wuhan Coronavirus cannot be determined.

Using genome sequencing to determine its origin, a bat Coronavirus stand (RaTG13) was found to be extremely similar to the Wuhan Coronavirus, with a sequencing similarity of 96%, therefore it is believed to be the ancestral virus stand of this Wuhan Coronavirus. This particular virus strand was obtained and isolated from Yunnan bats (Rhinolophus sinicus), and bats are believed to be the natural host of this Wuhan Coronavirus. Epidemiology clearly indicated Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market as the amplification epicentre, where there was a huge possibility that the virus had cross-infected between the natural host and the intermediate host, and then mutated within the intermediate host to adapt to the human body, followed by human-to-human infections.

The identity of the intermediate host remains unknown, but genome sequencing indicated that the Spike Receptor-binding domain of the Wuhan Coronavirus has a 90% similarity to that of the pangolin Coronavirus strand. Although the pangolin could not be confirmed as the intermediate host, it is highly possible that this pangolin Coronavirus strand donated Spike Receptor-binding domain DNA (or even the entire sequence) to the bat Coronavirus strand. Though gene shuffling recombination, the novel Coronavirus was born.

Wild Animal Market, the Origin of Innumerable Viruses

The 2003 SARS virus originated from Heyuan, became an epidemic in Guangdong, and passed to Hong Kong. The SARS Coronavirus was found in civets, and China clearly banned the trading of wild animals afterwards. 17 years on, the wild animal market has run amuck. The Chinese have outright forgotten the lessons from SARS and have allowed a live wild animal market to exist within the centre of a highly developed city, with wild animals being cooked and eaten in brought daylight – simply astonishing. The faeces of the animals within a live wild animal market contain a large amount of germs and viruses. With a crowded environment, vile hygiene, and a mix of wild animal species, gene shuffling and mutation could easily occur in viruses, therefore these markets must be banned.

Reform of the wet markets should be a focus of epidemic prevention. The mainland Chinese and Hong Kong governments must quickly improve these environments by enhancing ventilation and pest control. Before the complete elimination of live-animal markets, animal faeces must be well handled to minimise the chances of gene shuffling in viruses.

The online rumour that the virus originated from the US was absolutely groundless, delusional. Stop spreading the falsity before we expose ourselves to ridicule. To remain calm before a pandemic, informational transparency is of the utmost importance. With calm and objective analysis, refrain from parroting others and spreading hearsay. Not strictly enforcing the closure of all wild animal markets after SARS was a grave mistake. In order to defeat an illness, one must own up to the mistakes and face the truths. Stop committing the same mistakes and putting the blame onto others. The Wuhan Coronavirus was a product of the inferior culture of the Chinese people: excessive hunting and ingesting wild animals, inhumane treatment of animals, disrespecting lives. Continuing to devour wild animals for human desires, the deep-rooted bad habits of the Chinese people are the real origin of the virus. With this attitude, in a dozen years, SARS 3.0 is bound to happen.

(Dr Lung graduated in 2004 from the University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Medicine with distinction in Medicine. He currently works in the Hong Kong Children’s Hospital, where he built up the microbiology team and lab. Yuen Kwok-yung is a Professor and Chair of Infectious Diseases of the Department of Microbiology of the University of Hong Kong)
00:07 19 Mar: Yuen Kwok-yung & Disciple Withdraw & Apologise over Article "Pandemic Originated from Wuhan; Lesson from 17 Years Ago Forsaken"

Ming Pao Daily, which printed the article written by renowned biologist Yuen Kwok-yung and disciple David Christopher Lung, withdrew the article tonight.

They said they are scientists chasing after science and truth, and knew nothing about politics. They said they never intend to be involved in politics. They apologised that the expression was not appropriate and words used were wrong. This was not their intention, and they stressed that the article has nothing to do about politics. They are sorry for causing the misunderstanding due to the "typos". They did not mention what were the words and expressions involved.

However, their article did place Singapore, Malaysia and other countries together with the Republic of China. Later they changed the words to Taiwan. Now they decided to withdraw the article.
2020年3月18日 星期三 《明報》觀點版

龍振邦、袁國勇:大流行緣起武漢 十七年教訓盡忘


此疫由病毒所致,因其形如冠,故名曰冠狀病毒。世衛由2015年開始避免用人名、地名、動物、食物、文化、職業等為疾病命名。故是次以「年份」為此病冠名以資識別,稱此病為冠狀病毒感染-19(COVID-19)。國際病毒分類委員會(International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, ICTV)以病毒基因排序為命名標準,每段基因逐一細心分析,其他因素不作考慮。蓋因此冠狀病毒基因排序「未夠新」,屬沙士冠狀病毒的姐妹,故稱之為沙士冠狀病毒2.0(SARS-CoV-2)。民間及國際媒體則稱之為武漢冠狀病毒或武漢肺炎,直接簡單,亦無不可。


庚子大疫  始於武漢
約75%之新發傳染病源於野生動物,而數隻能感染哺乳類動物的冠狀病毒,其元祖病毒(ancestral virus)則源於蝙蝠或雀鳥。兩者皆能從數千公里外飛抵發現病毒之處,故病毒之命名系統亦會以發現處名之記之。欲查病毒之源,準確客觀之法乃從動物宿主身上分離出病毒。可惜華南海鮮批發市場早被清場,研究人員抵達蒐證取樣本之時,場內之活野味早已不知所終,病毒之天然宿主(natural host)及中間宿主(intermediate host)身分成疑。據當地人員述,華南海鮮批發市場內之野生動物從中國各地、東南亞各國及非洲(走私出口)運抵此處集散,武漢冠狀病毒之元祖病毒源於何地則無從稽考。

以基因排序之法尋源,查得一隻蝙蝠冠狀病毒株(RaTG13)與武漢冠狀病毒極為相近,其排序高達96%近似,故相信此病毒株為武漢冠狀病毒之始祖。此病毒株於雲南的中華菊頭蝠(Rhinolophus sinicus)身上分離得之,故相信蝙蝠乃武漢冠狀病毒之天然宿主。流行病學研究明確顯示華南海鮮批發市場為初期擴散點(amplification epicenter),病毒很大機會在場內由天然宿主交叉感染中間宿主,再於中間宿主體內出現適應人體之突變,繼而出現人傳人之感染。

中間宿主身分未明,但基因排序顯示武漢冠狀病毒S蛋白受體(Spike Receptor-binding domain)與穿山甲冠狀病毒株近似度高達90%。雖然未能確定穿山甲為中間宿主,但此穿山甲冠狀病毒株極可能捐出S蛋白受體基因(甚至全段S蛋白基因)給蝙蝠冠狀病毒株,透過基因洗牌重組成為新的冠狀病毒。

野味市場  萬毒之源



「追求科學真理 無意捲入政治」 龍振邦袁國勇撤回文章 (23:38)
本報觀點版今日刊登香港大學李嘉誠醫學院微生物學系名譽助理教授龍振邦,及香港大學李嘉誠醫學院霍英東基金(傳染病學)教授袁國勇來稿〈大流行緣起武漢 十七年教訓盡忘〉,龍振邦及袁國勇現撤回文章。


2020年3月22日 蘋果日報

〈大流行緣起武漢〉文言版 - 馮睎乾

昨天邵頌雄教授撰文,評龍振邦、袁國勇的〈大流行緣起武漢 十七年教訓盡忘〉,點出了不少人皆忽略的問題:文風。邵兄評它「文筆風格夾雜」,開場白是「無厘頭的半白話」,「初看還以為是引用網上流行好幾篇以『荊楚大疫』為題的文言潮文」。龍、袁為什麼用這種表達方式?寫法是否恰當?從文學角度談這篇文,大概比政治角度有意義得多。


龍、袁合撰文章已有多年,我看過他們在《灼見名家》發表的作品,處處見「半文言」風格。據我推測,〈大〉的風格是龍振邦的,他在《灼見名家》的簡介這樣寫:「龍振邦,香港大學醫學院畢業。傳染病及微生物科醫生,專研小兒科傳染病。愛憶舊懷古,以史為鑑。」尾句的描述,完全符合那「民國穿越而來」的筆法。我印象最深的,是在龍醫生有份寫的〈白文信:我只是巧匠凡醫!〉中,把十九世紀蘇格蘭醫生白文信(Sir Patrick Manson)的英語筆記引文,一律譯為文言,還把外國學者評論白文信的話翻成打油詩:「醫學會上觀奇文,方知世事如斯神。白君如非驚世才,定是醉鄉夢裏人。」可惜他沒提供原文。





Tuesday, 3 March 2020

[Historical files] Sir MacLehose's Statement on 5 Nov 1977 on Partial Amnesty of Police Officers

港督麥理浩昨夜發表重要聲明 今年以前所犯貪污廉署不再受理投訴 **************** 成立兩個特別委會監管廉政公署工作 簡悅强爵士任主席 另一個高登任主席

1977年11月6日 星期日 華僑、工商日報綜合












7 November 1977 - Statement from Governor at LegCo
"Government and community cannot yield to the corrupt says Governor"

I would like to make a statement.

On the Saturday evening I announced a new policy with regard to ICAC operations. I did say in the following terms: ‘all concerned may take it that as from now the ICAC will not normally act on complaints or evidence relating to offences committed before 1 January 1977 except in relation to persons who have been interviewed, persons against whom warrants have been issued, and persons now outside Hong Kong. I except persons who have already been interviewed because I do not think that anyone would accept that law enforcement operations, whether by the Police or by the ICAC, should be halted by extra-legal action. I say ‘will not normally act’ because occasionally an offence may come to light which is so heinous that it would be unthinkable not to act and the public would not tolerate failure to act. But in any such case I will be consulted first.’

This, of course, applied to the members of all public services, and to the public, and not just to the Police Force.

Our object has always been to cleanse the public service and to continue prosecutions for past offences until acceptable standards had been achieved. We had never envisaged prosecuting everybody who had ever committed any offence. In view of the great improvement in the standards of honesty achieved, particularity over the last two years, I had expected before long to take a step of the sort announced last Saturday. This would make it possible to concentrate on maintaining standards for the future, rather than to continue to impress the need for honesty by prosecuting people for offences committed in the past, and thus turn over a new leaf in the history of the public services. However, in the circumstances that had arisen, I judged that this relief should be granted immediately. Apart from these exceptions, it has removed all cause for fear from all who keep straight.

The exceptions were deliberately intended to be very small. One was – and I quote – ‘persons who had already been interviewed’. This does not mean anybody to whom an ICAC officer has spoken at any time. It means only persons who have been interviewed by an ICAC officer, whether or not following arrest, and to whom during that interview allegations had been made that they had committed an offence. The number of such people is small, probably not more than 200 within a force of 20,000.

Another exception was an offence committed before this year, which came to light, and was so heinous that it would be unthinkable not to act. To ensure that in no circumstances would this exception be used to undermine my general intention, I stated that if there was such a case it would have to be referred to me. And this made clear that I expected the number of cases to be negligible, and in fact none is known at this moment.

Other exceptions related to the obvious cases of persons for whom warrants had been issued or person now outside Hong Kong.

Although there was nothing in the statement that would inhibit ICAC from ensuring that the improvement achieved would be maintained, or that suggested that our determination to maintain a clean public service was abandoned or diminished, I think its timing and its content came as a shock to the public. Although the reasons for it have been sympathetically understood, many were worried that it had been made at all, or that it went too far. But certainly, no one has suggested that it should have gone further – quite the contrary.

My statement has been under consideration by the different associations of the Police Force. Honourable Members and the public will be concerned to learn that informally it was suggested that it did not go far enough; that pressure should be maintained on the administration by demonstrations and progressive refusal of law enforcement until all current interviews, charges and court proceedings now in course were dropped.

I have no doubt that these ideas were propagated by the less than one per cent who under the exceptions I have mentioned remain in fear of prosecution, and insofar as they are supported by others it is because of a mistaken sense of temporary euphoria or solidarity. I assure them it is time very soberly to consider their position. It is for the Police to answer to lawful authority and to enforce it − not to answer to a small self-interested group.

The idea that pressure can achieve further concessions of this sort would result from a complete misconception of the mood of the Government and the community. It would also ignore the true interests of at least 99 per cent of the Police Force itself. Needless to say it totally ignores the true interests of Hong Kong where the enforcement of law and order and the achievement of acceptable standards of honesty have made such strides in recent years. Concessions to such demands under pressure would invite pressure on other issues; next, it would be the suppression of ICAC itself, possibly to have persons in prison released, and so on, until we had a situation in which the law was being administered in the interests of the corrupt. I know this is not what most of the Force and their families want, but this is where they would be led if the Government were to give any further ground. To do so would yield to anarchy and to anarchy there can be no concession. I am confident in this I am speaking for the entire community, young and old, rich and poor.

I hope that wiser counsels will now prevail. But it is as well that all should realize now, before irrevocable action is taken that we cannot accept that policemen who do not accept lawful authority, or who support others in not doing so, or continue to dominate lawful authority by means of pressures, should remain in the Force, and be paid by the public. In the present circumstances powers available are too slow and ponderous. Honourable Members will therefore be invited this afternoon to amend the Police Force Ordinance to grant powers of summary dismissal.

I very much hope it will not be necessary to use these powers. I hope, as I say, that wiser counsels will prevail and that the dialogue proceeding will continue. I can also ensure all concerned that these powers will not be used in respect of anything that has happened so far, and they will not likely be used in the future.

I am glad to say in conclusion that a meeting was held between the Deputy Commissioner of Police and representatives of the various Police associations during most of today. The meeting agreed that the Commissioner should issue a statement that will be made shortly, recording a pledge of full loyalty to the Commissioner and a pledge that in future all issues would be pursued through established constitutional channels, and by no other means, and certainly not by the process of any protest public gatherings.

As I have only just heard this statement I am unable to comment on it, but I feel it right that Honourable Members should know of it before passing to the Bill before them. I still think that the powers that the amendment will confer and desirable, though the outcome of this meeting does offer additional hope that they will not need to be used.


















Thursday, 10 October 2019

Liber Research Community: "New Xinjiang" Coming Up Next Near San Uk Ling?

[Editorial note: This English article merges two articles published by Liber Research Community on 8 & 9 Oct]
Episode 1: Use of San Uk Ling Holding Centre Suspended, But "New Xinjiang" Next to SUL Set to Commence Construction?
Translated by HKCT, written by Liber Research Community [20:39 8 Oct, Chi version]

Not many people noticed this but the government secretly allocated $1.913 billion funds at the beginning of the anti-ELAB movement for site formation of about 19 hectares of land at Kong Nga Po - right next to the Chinese border and San Uk Ling Holding Centre. This will be a big step in "Xinjiang"-ising Hong Kong as the site will be used for building a gigantic police facility for counter-terrorism.

"A New Xinjiang"?

The government plans to form a site of about 19 hectares at Kong Nga Po, equivalent to one Victoria Park. It will be "a purpose-built advanced tactical training facility for counter-terrorist and other specialist operations" [PWSC(2018-19)41 Encl. 4 p. 61 note 2], isolated from the urban area, similar to the many huge counter-terrorist complexes in Xinjiang.

What will be in this facility at Kong Nga Po, or "New Xinjiang"? Not much has been publicised, but according to a plan submitted during the environmental impact assessment (in 2016), there will be firing ranges, weapons training facilities (WTF), police driving and traffic training facilities (including a multi-storey training complex), a helipad, and a proposed Police Training Facility (PTF).

When LegCo members Au Nok-hin and Ray Chan Chi-chuen asked for more details, the authorities then answered that [Chi only] the Specialist Operation Training Facility is "for counter-terrorist and other specialist operations". There will be a "simulated urban environment as a training facility". For weapons training facilities - WTF, surrounding firing ranges will be integrated into one big firing range so that the police can conduct an amplitude of firearm training, including pistols, rifles, shotguns. Also, the facility in Fanling - or the carpark of water cannon trucks, will be placed inside this "counter-terrorist facility" in Kong Nga Po. The police can train, from dawn to dusk, how to use these water cannon trucks or armoured vehicles with LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) in a far-flung forest without anyone knowing.

With no Osama bin Laden in Hong Kong, this kind of counter-terrorist training is clearly targeting public events, such as protests or rallies.

Integrate San Uk Ling Holding Centre into this big plan?

Weirdly enough, the government explained the purpose of this project as the relocation of firing ranges and other police facilities into a big one, but the latest plan did not include San Uk Ling Holding Centre and the nearby San Uk Ling Firing Range - these two have remained in the development plan.

So when Carrie Lam said San Uk Ling has ceased to operate, was that "suspension" or "withdrawal"? If it is not a permanent cessation, the holding centre may be integrated into this "New Xinjiang" project to become part of a counter-terrorist base. Will the holding centre become a new "re-education camp" like those in Xinjiang or a Guantanamo in the New Territories?

"New Territories" or "New Xinjiang"? 

In December 2018, Secretary for Security John Lee visited counter-terrorist facilities, including a counter-terrorist tactical training centre, in Xinjiang. Lee said "reference can be drawn from the experience in Xinjiang" upon his return. Soon after, his bureau submitted this counter-terrorist base infrastructure project to ask for funding in LegCo in January 2019.

Estimates 2019-20 (SB001/Q1209, Security Bureau)

Why wasn't this reported?

The project was not widely known because the government is good at playing with red tapes, putting this site formation project into the $33.5 billion appropriations of Northeast New Territories. While the press will focus on the demolition of villages or developers' hegemony, no attention will be on this counter-terrorism site in "New Xinjiang". See, everything was printed in the footnotes (note #3):

793CL – Site formation and infrastructure works for Police facilities in Kong Nga Po
When people are focusing on Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, the government has already obtained $1.913 billion to start site formation. The tender (Contract No.: ND/2018/01) said it will begin works from November this year - next month!

Now we are just talking about $1.913 billion for site formation ONLY. For a counter-terrorism facility cluster of this scale, it is very likely to cost over $10 billion. As of now, there is no estimate breakdown of the facility's budget. When the site formation is done, the Security Bureau can ask for whatever it wants to.

Oppose "New Xinjiang"

The police are treating streets with protesters as firing ranges nearly every day, aren't such training of firearm enough? There is no need to have such a training facility. If a huge place like this had been made available for drills of water cannon trucks or Unimog armoured vehicles with LRAD, its lethality will be way more than what you saw weeks ago. Thus we have to oppose this $10B+ project, which is presented as a counter-terrorism facility but, in fact, will be used to train cops to attack Hongkongers.

If there is no need to build such a counter-terrorism base and site formation has been completed, the most pragmatic solution is to move the current police training school in Wong Chuk Hang - which is 18ha - into Kong Nga Po. By vacating the site on Island South, 13,000 residential flats might be built thereon, according to JLL LaSalle.

How did Xinjiang turn into what it is now? According to SCIO, there was first an "anti-terrorism" police base, then a "preventive anti-terrorism approach" was adopted, leading to the set up of "vocational education centres", or simply "re-education camps". If we have to prevent the Hong Kong government from adopting the "preventive anti-terrorism approach", we cannot allow the government to infringe us under the pretext of counter-terrorism.

If we have to stop police violence, we must stop this "New Xinjiang" counter-terrorism project. If Carrie Lam does not take money from the coffer by invoking the emergency law, the Security Bureau is expected to apply for funds of this facility within this fiscal year. Please spread this message, do more and keep abreast of the latest situation - prevent Hong Kong from becoming another Xinjiang!

HKCT note: The government issued a press release to respond to rumours before the publication of this article:

Government clarifies rumours about construction of police base for counter-terrorism  
     In response to rumours on the Internet that the Government plans to construct a police base near San Uk Ling for counter-terrorism, a Government spokesman today (October 8) clarified that the Government does not have such a plan. The claims are totally unfounded. 

Ends/Tuesday, October 8, 2019
Issued at HKT 15:30

Episode 2: Dark Side of "New Xinjiang" Unveiled

Chinese media have reported the project [HKCT note: SCMP, The Standard and HKFP did not report this matter as of the moment of this translation] and attracted some public attention. Although the government secretly secured the funds for site formation of Kong Nga Po police facility, or "New Xinjiang", the police force will seek funding for the main works of the facility. That will not be so easy unless Carrie Lam invokes the emergency law for funding again.

As of now, the government spokesman gave a low-key response of "totally unfounded claims" without any supporting evidence, meaning Liber Research Community has totally hit the bull's eye! OK, time for us to provide more red-handed evidence.

Govt claims info unfounded, but such info was from govt!

All information provided in the entire episode 1 is cited from official documents, including the Specialist Operation Training Facility - those were from documents submitted to LegCo. The "purpose-built advanced tactical training facility for counter-terrorist and other specialist operations" was from the government as well.

"Totally unfounded"? Does that mean the government is concocting information to deceive LegCo?

From super-prison cluster to "New Xinjiang"

It is important to read more extensively before you decide. Spend 3 minutes to know the course of history so that "the devil in the detail" is unveiled:

  • 2001 - a super-prison: In 2001, Tung Chee-hwa said the prisons in Hong Kong were overcrowded, so a study was done to see whether a large prison complex can be built in Hei Ling Chau or Kong Nga Po, so that "the CSD would be able to run the 15 000 new penal places within its existing staff establishment".
  • 2003 - proposal dropped: Regina Ip, then Secretary for Security, explained that Shenzhen did not want a super-prison to be so close by, as she learnt. DAB said it was due to security grounds, so the proposal was dropped.
  • 2010-12 - building flats: With the idea of developing the border area and spotting for sites, the government asked a consultancy to conduct a feasibility study in Kong Nga Po to see whether a project with low-to-medium density residential flats are possible.
  • 2014: relocation site to accommodate police facilities - The area would no longer be used for residential flats, but would absorb all police facilities in North District after site formation. The original police facility sites were vacated for building residential flats, according to a North District Council document. Planning Department said the neighbouring San Uk Ling Firing Range induced noise pollution, and as the firing range cannot be moved, Kong Nga Po was not suitable for residential development.
  • July 2016 - submits EIA: The entire 19 ha will be used for relocating police facilities in North District, and also additional "police training facilities will be built" but the purpose remained unknown
  • December 2018 - S for S learns counter-terrorism experience from Xinjiang: Inter-departmental Counter-terrorism Unit (ICTU) was set up in April 2018, and Secretary for Security John Lee visited Xinjiang to draw reference from them. 333 counter-terrorism exercises were conducted, including 21 large-scale drills in 2017, LegCo paper said.
  • February 2019 - counter-terrorist Specialist Operation Training Facility: project placed under $33.5 billion lump-sum appropriations of Northeast New Territories development
  • May 2019 - site formation funds secured: LegCo finance committee granted $1.913 billion funds to the site formation of Kong Nga Po and site formation works can begin in November 2019.

In short, the crucial "devil" moment occurred after 2014: first came the claim to centralise police facilities, then the mention of "training facilities" was added in 2016 with no mention of counter-terrorism in EIA. After repeated counter-terrorist drills and the Xinjiang visit, the Security Bureau asked LegCo for funds for the site formation of the project, with the indication of the facility's use for counter-terrorism only mentioned in the fine prints. Why the secrecy from the government? You got the answer.

Counter-terrorism base for sure!

When the government said "New Xinjiang" is not a counter-terrorism base, Liber Research Community carefully combed through the most recent LegCo papers and found the document:

The KNP site will also accommodate a new Specialist Operation Training Facility. This new facility together with the four other existing police training facilities to be relocated can create synergy on police training. In addition, the co-location will enhance Police’s operational efficiency. 

The reason why the facilities have to be relocated and centralised is not just about counter-terrorism, but to use this gigantic site - the size of Victoria Park - to "create synergy", so that the entire site can be used for counter-terrorism. With that, the police can use tear gas, live ammunition, water cannon trucks, fluorescent powder, LRAD (and the list goes on) concurrently in the facility. They may even put a dummy Joshua Wong in the "simulated urban environment" to practise breaking into flats and capturing a target alive. Synergy is only possible when the facilities are centralised, taking police brutality to a new level.

  • If "New Xinjiang", or Kong Nga Po, is not going to have a counter-terrorism facility, will the Security Bureau return the $1.913 billion to the public coffer?
  • What claims are "groundless"? Those government documents submitted to LegCo?
  • The government did not mention counter-terrorism drills in the 2016 EIA. Should the government stop the permit of site formation, halt the works and do the EIA again to see the potential environmental impact>
  • Counter-terrorism facility may not be built but will it be used to build a super prison, just like Tung's suggestion?
Spread this message if you do not want Hong Kong to become another Xinjiang.

Saturday, 10 August 2019

Apple Daily: Former Marine Police Arrested for Unlawful Assembly on 4 Aug

Jan Bochenski, a former marine police inspector and a retired Cathay Pacific pilot, wanted to have a walk in Sai Wan after dinner on 4 August as he lives nearby, but was subdued by the police later on. He was told that he was arrested for unlawful assembly when he was brought to the police van. He was detained for 28 hours before released.
Bochenski said around 21:00 on 4 Aug, he went to Ka On Street and found that about 30 to 40 onlookers were on the pavement, looking at the police. Some police afar were guarding the Liaison Office. Bochenski heard some disputes but did not think that to be important, so he continued to walk along Des Voeux Road West.
Suddenly, some PTU holding batons and shields approached from the other side of Ka On Street and subdued everyone, including residents in their pyjamas and South Asian delivery boy. Bochenski was asked whether he is a tourist but he said he lived nearby and just are having a walk. His reply was ignored and the police asked him to turn his phone off. He was later brought to Cheung Sha Wan Police Station. For some 40 arrestees in the same detention room, none of them is students nor wearing in black with helmets. A decoration worker, a teacher and two Indian chefs were later arranged to be detained with Bochenski.
Bochenski said the most impressive scene is there were no senior officers in the station, but all junior PCs and sergeants. Bochenski recollected that whenever there is a crisis, at least one chief inspector will be in the police station to manoeuvre, but that apparently was not the case on 4 Aug. He demanded to go to the toilet many times but was unheeded, until he said he will pee at the corner of the wall. He also demanded to call his next of kin but was also disregarded. Until rounds of complaints, he was allowed to call his wife, who is outside of Hong Kong. It was not until 5 Aug afternoon that the officers learnt Bochenski's identity as a former police officer.
After listening to the advice of the lawyer, Bochenski decided to remain silent. He said, "to be honest this makes their work easier because they know these detentions are all unnecessary; frontline officers are used for dirty work". Until around 01:00 on 6 Aug he was released but he must report presence again later this month.
Growing up in Vanuatu, Bochenski lived in Australia and the UK. His first job is to join the police force in Hong Kong and become an inspector for four years. His upbringing let him know that being a policeman in a colony must not upset the residents there.
He also mentioned that during the detention, some young officers knew that he was a policeman and had a chat with him. Bochenski was asked about his views on the current situation and he stressed the importance of trust between the police and the people - this was also the biggest challenge before 1997. Bochenski said the Royal Hong Kong Police Force spent years to build a mutual trust with the people, but now the trust has been completely eroded, and the government does not find it problematic.
Bochenski said if the government is willing to set up a commission of inquiry (COI), the mutual trust between the police and the people may be rebuilt, but the key is that both parties are willing to contribute. It has been 4 decades since Bochenski joined the force, and he still felt quite proud of being a policeman. He kept contact with his former colleagues and this year they will fly to Hong Kong to celebrate the 40th anniversary since being policemen. Although being arrested arbitrarily, his pride remains. During the interview, Bochenski repeated that the police should do their job right and cannot make arbitrary arrests.
"Whenever you are in a uniform, you should do things right and proper, otherwise you are not doing your job right, isn't it?" said Bochenski.

Chinese version (Original):

Friday, 2 August 2019

[HK's First Interpreter] Hong Kong A Step Closer to Use of Chinese in Public Matter (Chinese only)

一九七二年四月廿八日 星期五

即時傳譯主任 由英抵港履新







Monday, 29 July 2019

Edward Leung's Letter to Hongkongers - 26 July 2019

Edward Leung's Letter to Hongkongers - 26 July 2019
Translated by HKCT, written by Edward Leung

At 15:04 on 29 July, the Facebook page of Edward Leung, former spokesperson of Hong Kong Indigenous, uploaded a letter to Hongkongers. Full translation here:
Dear Hongkongers,

I hope this letter has not arrived too late.

This has been a muggy and long summer. Every night on the weekend, I would put on my headphones to listen to the news broadcast on the radio, worrying about the situation in Hong Kong. The next morning, I would watch the morning news on TV. By around noon, I would read the reports in the newspaper. Over and over, as I looked at the blood-stained scenes, my heart would be filled with sorrow and pain.

I know no matter how hard I try, I can never imagine the physical and mental suffering that you all are going through. Amidst the gunfire, I witness the bloodshed on the streets. I hear the sorrows and screams all around, and I know these have surely ignited your grief and fury.
As the number of people arrested and hospitalised continues to swell, I think of the future that you will have to face, and of the wounds that will be hard to heal. I really want to know, is there anyone who can mend the wounds inflicted on this society?

I have been separated from the society for over a year and a half now, and the information that I receive is extremely limited. I suppose writing this letter from where I am does not carry any weight, let alone writing a commentary on the matter.

However, I still hope that you all will understand: you have all exemplified incredible courage and rewritten the history of Hong Kong with your passion and love for this place. Certainly, true justice has yet to come, and perhaps you may be filled with fury in your heart; but this is only human nature. But I sincerely urge that your mind must not be dominated by hatred. In such times of crisis, you must always remain vigilant, and continue to think and reflect.

I always remind myself this: to work in politics is not just about making supporters continue their support for you. More so, it is about transforming those who were not on your side of the fence, it is about changing their mindsets, and making them identify with your point of view.

If that is the case, if we do want society view those condemned as "a mob" who have been engaged in "riots" with more tolerance and empathy; if we do want the society to understand the demands of these people who have been silenced, and accept the remonstrance of these people who have been rendered powerless; I think we must be more vigilant and alert to all our words and deeds. Will they bring us closer to our goals, or will it drive us farther away from it?

The people who should be resolving societal issues are choosing to turn a cold shoulder; instead, they seem keen to put Hong Kong's destiny on the line in a game of political gamble. What we need now is not to gamble our precious lives against them, but to purify and transcend our perseverance and hopes through our suffering. 

I sincerely pray that every Hongkonger can cross this historical juncture, safe and sound.

Edward Leung
26 July 2019

Monday, 24 June 2019

Bullets aimed at heads, fire first & then disperse - Review of Police's new strategy on 12 June

Bullets aimed at heads, fire first & then disperse - Review of Police's new strategy on 12 June
Translated by HKCT, written by Kwan Chun-hoi
Original: Kwan Chun-hoi's Medium 

"What a pleasure to see that! I thought we only fired during training. That’s real! There it is! (laughs) And I would not allow a “2.0” version to happen." In a video recorded within the police force as obtained by Apple Daily, a police officer seemed to be proud of firing, who "will not allow Umbrella Movement 2.0 to happen", talked with a sense of mission. 

Police and members of the public hold opposite views on firing. I stayed at the scene for 8 hours (10 am-6 pm) on 12 June and could give an analysis on the tactics employed by the Police in dealing with mass movement which was conspicuously different from the recent years. But the first question to be asked, both from the Hongkongers and Police, why firing came first? 

Police were facing the same situation as in the umbrella movement that 5,000 police officers were way less than tens of thousands of Hongkongers. From 3:30pm to 4pm, the force employed a baiting tactic. Front line police officers purposely did not wear gas masks, which projected an illusion of them being slack. Two inspectors in white uniform were assigned in each spot. The message of "no clearance today" was also disseminated to the lawmakers, which further soothed the tension. When protesters were lured into the LegCo Complex, tons of tear gas were fired. Flooded rapidly were special tactical squads hidden inside the Complex, as well as masked police officers with waving batons. 

To fire first and then disperse was the deployment of police and the main direction used to clear the scene on 12 June. What's more, firing (such as rubber bullets and bean bag rounds) was aimed at heads, while tear gas canisters were hurled on bodies. 

Fire first and then disperse -- The followings were my observation near the LegCo public protest area from 3pm to 4pm: 
Protest at midday on 12 June was peaceful. Police had once said that there was no plan to "clear the scene for the time being". Some secondary school students in uniform, office ladies and white-collar workers from Central arrived at the scene to show support to the protest. There were church members lined up in front of the police officers singing hymns incessantly. No violence was foreseen. 

The calm ambience at 3pm in the public protest area became tense at near 4pm, when it was learnt that clashes started on Tim Mei Avenue. Police received news at 4pm that protesters were planning to occupy the LegCo. 

Protesters charged the Police cordon line. Without any warning and under the instruction from an inspector, the police fired bean bag rounds at protesters by an officer holding a Remington shotgun. During the clashes, there were protesters hurling a few pieces of bricks, around two to three. The inspector picked up the bricks and roared at the protesters, "Are you hurling bricks? Are you hurling bricks?" From what I saw at the scene, there were not many bricks. The shout of "Are you hurling bricks?" from police was more an order to their colleagues for the sake of recording rather than a warning to the protesters. Would it be an indication of "shoot once hurled"? 

Another angle at the public protest area: Police officers rushed out to strike protesters
Police fired the first tear gas when officers without gas masks were forced to back off to the corner. Then the riot squads lurked inside the Legco Building flocked in to disperse the crowd by batons. Former Commissioner of Police TSANG Wai-hung had once explained that the use of tear gas was for dispersing the crowd, but the operation this time was obviously to fire first and disperse afterwards. This is completely different from either the operation conducted during the Umbrella Movement in 2014 that "Disperse the crowd first" or the common ways used internationally. 

Back to 1989 Govt prevents treachery 
I believed that "This is an ORDER" to take a group photo of the police officers next to the patrol car before the operation. The photo could be sent within police WhatsApp groups for showing their loyalty, recognising their faces and implementing stringently the accountability system, in case "treacherous" officers refused to shoot at the scene. With the headshot taken, any uncooperative officers can be tried publicly within Police. I witnessed the first shot at the public protest area. 

The inspector made an order to the police officer, who was holding a gun and without a mask, next to his ear. Once the first shot was fired, other police officers would be relieved of a burden and become obedient soldiers who can forget the criminal responsibility of shooting at people's heads. That was why police officers were boasting that they would not allow a second umbrella movement as they have obviously been brain-washed. I believe that even Commissioner Stephen LO Wai-chung was well aware that once there were over 30,000 to 50,000 people around the LegCo, and the Police could only resort to weapons and tear gas for clearance. 

In 1989, Xu Qinxian, the army commander of the Beijing 38th Group Army, applied for leave. Sympathizing the citizens, the troops could not clear the scene when they entered the city. DENG Xiaoping worried the morale of the troops and therefore cut off their communications. Soldiers could only wait for instructions at the camps. In 2019, rumours saying that there are opposing voices to the "Fugitive Extradition Bill" at the senior level within the Government. The Government Headquarters was closed for two days. Police officers successively quit from friend WhatsApp groups and fired feverishly in the city. The police force is now out of control. Pro-Beijing camp went against the will of a million of people by keeping silent and trying their very best to attend the meeting. ExCo member Bernard Chan even implied the deployment of the People's Liberation Army, which was however ultimately denied by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Protesters were clad in white and then black, finally turned into red. Say hello to 1989. 

Saturday, 15 June 2019

Ray Wong: War between the Free World and Totalitarianism

War between the Free World and Totalitarianism
(Speech by Ray Wong Toi-Yeung on 4/6/2019 in German Diet)
(Content originally from Hong Kong Indigenous; small editorial changes made by HKCT to conform spelling standards)

Thanks for having me today. It’s my honour to speak to you. My name is Ray Wong Toi-yeung. Alan Li and I are the first refugees from Hong Kong. We were granted refugee status last year.

I would like to thank Germany for welcoming us. I really appreciate Germany’s reverence for human rights and human dignity. Today, I would also like to thank the Green Party, Ms Bause and her colleagues for organizing this important event.

30 years ago, when the tanks rolled into Tian'anmen Square, the world watched in horror as blood ran on the streets! More horrible is that this murderous regime is still ruling the country! China’s economic success gave the world an illusion that as it prospered, it would eventually become a democratic country with respect for human rights.

Unfortunately, though 30 years have passed, the communist China regime has become more brutal than ever. This is one of the world’s most totalitarian states!

When Hong Kong was handed to China in 1997, we had no choice but to accept this murderer, as the negotiation was made by the UK and China! Under "One Country, Two Systems", Hong Kong was promised to have freedom, rule of law, autonomy and democracy. But China has broken all these promises!

In 2014, I was one of the protesters in a huge pro-democracy protest, the Umbrella Revolution. In order to disperse hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong citizens, the government ordered the use of tear gas against us and the police beat us with batons. Riot police were pointing guns in our face.
There were rumours that tanks from China were crossing the border. The vivid and bloody images of Chinese students rolled over by tanks and shot in Tiananmen square came to my mind!

I was thinking: Would this be our Hong Kong’s June 4?
Nonetheless, we were not afraid! That night I saw the strength of will of Hong Kongers who were willing to defend our city’s freedom and fight for democracy. And I saw hope.

It was this which motivated me to devote myself to Hong Kong’s politics.
I founded the Hong Kong Indigenous Party in January 2015 with a group of young people who shared the same hope as me. Our vision was to fight for freedom, build democracy and save Hong Kong’s language, culture and identity.

“Freedom is nothing but a chance to be better.”
- Albert Camus

More than a year of hard work later, we gained enough support in a by-election that we were very confident of a seat in the legislative council general election in 2016!
Unfortunately, the Beijing regime saw us as a potential threat which would undermine their great plan to turn Hong Kong into just another Chinese city.
My colleague Edward Leung was barred from running in the election due to his political views. So we transferred our support to another party, which successfully secured two seats. But these two lawmakers were later disqualified also. We lost our political rights!

Not content with this, Beijing and the Hong Kong government came after us with harsh prosecutions linked to another protest, the so-called Fishball revolution. Edward, Alan and I and 40 others were charged with rioting under the Public Order Ordinance, a law which was strongly criticized by the United Nations Human rights Council. The maximum sentence is 10 years in prison!

In June 2018, Edward was sentenced to jail for six years. About 30 other protesters, mostly students, have been put into prison for terms of 3 to 7 years.
I want to call for the immediate release of Edward Leung and all Hong Kong’s political prisoners!
There is a long list of human rights abuses in Hong Kong. Booksellers were kidnapped to China, democratically elected lawmakers were disqualified, protesters were sentenced to harsh prison terms! A Financial Times journalist was expelled from Hong Kong and human rights activists have been denied entry. Academic and press freedom is threatened.

Four leaders of the Umbrella revolution, including Professor Benny Tai and Professor Chan Kin-man are now in prison.

Is this the same Hong Kong as before 1997?

The free world has to wake up to the challenge from authoritarianism and defend Hong Kong’s freedom and dignity against communist China.

Recently, Beijing has opened a new front by ordering the Hong Kong government to pass an amendment to the Extradition law. This Law is effectively a legalization of kidnapping!

The law will give power to the Hong Kong government to arrest and extradite a Hong Kong citizen or foreign visitor to face trial in China. How dare the Hong Kong government agree to extradite their own citizens and visitors to a legal system where forced confessions are normal, and torture is common?

Human rights and the rule of law benefit Hong Kong as a trading hub. It is not only an international financial centre but also a platform for international NGOs to advocate freedom, human rights and democracy in Asia. Hong Kong is strategically important for NGOs in the whole region.

This extradition bill is breaking the firewall between Hong Kong and China. For me personally, I will never be able to go back to Hong Kong as the Hong Kong government could extradite me to China on the grounds of threatening national security.

Hong Kong is facing a critical time in its 178 years of History. On the 30th anniversary of the June 4 massacre, we hope everyone in the world who treasures freedom, democracy and human dignity will join us in solidarity.
Hong Kong needs your help!

This is not only a war fighting the Communist regime by Hong Kong people, this is a war between democracy and tyranny; as well as a war between the free world and totalitarianism.


30 年前,當坦克駛進天安門廣場的時候,全世界都惶恐地看著染血的北京街頭;但更可怕的是,這個殺人政權至今仍然統治著這國家。中國在經濟上的成就給了世界一種繁榮的錯覺,讓人以為這個地方有一天將成為一個尊重人權的民主國家。不幸地,30 年過去了,這裡只有變得比以前更殘暴,更成為世界上其中一個最專制的國家。

當香港於 1997 年交還予中國時,我們(香港人)並沒有選擇,只能接受這個殺人兇手,那時所有談判都是英國和中國之間的,香港人並不能參與。「一國兩制」的制度承諾賦予香港自由、法治、自主及民主,但這些承諾全都被中國打破了。

2014 年,香港爆發了一場爭取民主的雨傘革命,我是示威者之一。為驅散數以十萬計的市民,政府下令使用催淚彈對付我們、警察用警棍毆打我們、防暴警察將槍口指向我們的臉;傳聞中國大陸的坦克會衝過邊界,我的腦海重現天安門廣場上、學生被射殺和被坦克輾過的血腥畫面,我想,這會是「香港六四」嗎?



這份希望驅使我投入香港政治,我和一群和我抱持同樣希望的年輕人,於 2015 年 1 月創立了本土民主前線,我們的願景是爭取自由、建立民主,以及保衛香港獨有的文化,語言和身份。

「自由的唯一意義,就是一個變得更好的機會」。- 阿爾貝•卡繆



但北京和香港政府並不滿足於此。在另一場被稱為「魚蛋革命」的大型示威後,他們嚴厲檢控我們。梁天琦、李東昇和我,及另外 40 人,我們被控《公安條例》中的暴動罪,這條最高刑罰是監禁 10 年的條例曾遭到聯合國人權委員會的強烈批評。

2018 年 6 月,梁天琦被判入獄 6 年,其他示威人士,包括大部份學生,全部被判 3 至 7 年監禁。

香港還和 1997 年前一樣嗎?





香港正處於開埠178年來最嚴峻的時候。於六四大屠殺 30 週年這時,我希望世上每一個珍惜自由、民主以及人類尊嚴的人們,與我們團結一致。
這不僅是香港人對抗共產黨政權的戰爭, 更是一場民主對抗暴政、自由世界對抗極權的戰爭。